If this story is corroborated, it is the end

[AUDub 11,151]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

I saw nothing perilous in Rudy's commentary today. You apparently did. We disagree. 

For defense attorneys, what he suggested is "perfectly normal" makes their hair stand up. Prosecutors would love it though lol. 

Go DM Ken White (popehat) if you're curious. Just mention RICO or ponies and he may reply before blocking you. 

[AUDub 11,151]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I would say almost always, not sometimes. 

True. The term "unbiased observer" is largely a myth, in my experience. 

[Grumps 3,704]

15 minutes ago, AUDub said:

So this:

That's not a "so what" thing. It's actually pretty perilous.

Question: If Trump spoke to Cohen before his testimony, what do you think the subject was? 

They may have been discussing their grandkids.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

6:32 to 7:15

There is no "interpretation" necessary.  He said it, period.

 

What are you inferring? I still see nothing there.

[AUDub 11,151]

Just now, Grumps said:

They may have been discussing their grandkids.

Maybe, but I find that hard to believe.

For one, I don't think Cohen has any grandkids.

For another, lol, really? 

[AUDub 11,151]

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

What are you inferring? I still see nothing there.

"Could be up to October, November"

Come on, 78. You may as well be denying he's speaking English.

[homersapien 11,381]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

What are you inferring? I still see nothing there.

I am not inferring anything.  I am offering proof of my early post which you 'facepalmed'.  I said:  "He (Giuliani) admitted Russian deal discussions were occurring right up to the election."

(Hint:  Those numbers I stated - 6:32-7:15  -are the approximate times in the interview where he made that statement.  Open the interview, go to 6:32 and listen to the words that come from Giuliani's mouth.  Repeat as required. )

 

[Grumps 3,704]

3 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Maybe, but I find that hard to believe.

For one, I don't think Cohen has any grandkids.

For another, lol, really? 

Sorry, I was making a subtle reference to the Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting. I think Clinton said that they were discussing their grandkids. I seriously doubt EITHER conversation was about grandkids or was completely innocent.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

"Could be up to October, November"

Come on, 78. You may as well be denying he's speaking English.

So the significance is what? Rudy stated the president doesn't precisely know when they last spoke on the matter and that he was concentrating on the presidency. Members of the Trump organization were running the business, not Trump himself. 

Did the president tell Cohen to lie? Rudy says 100% no. Just doesn't seem to be the there there as you guys seem to believe. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

This article seems appropriate at present:

https://nypost.com/2019/01/19/the-medias-gotcha-hysteria-is-shameful/

[AUDub 11,151]

18 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

This article seems appropriate at present:

https://nypost.com/2019/01/19/the-medias-gotcha-hysteria-is-shameful/

This dude sounds nuts. Making a lot of arguments by assertion here.

Checked his work and it pretty much amounts to one long anti-democrat screed. 

[AUDub 11,151]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

So the significance is what?

That he may have been speaking to Cohen way later than we thought wrt the Trump Tower deal. Both Cohen and Trump have lied about this. Cohen's **** up was doing it under oath.

Quote

Rudy stated the president doesn't precisely know when they last spoke on the matter and that he was concentrating on the presidency.

Didn't name an exact date, but he threw those months out there for a reason. 

And if the write-up I posted before from Joyce Vance and Mimi Rocah is correct, there's a method to this madness. They're saying he's not acting as a lawyer in the traditional sense. He's basically a spox/spin doctor. He's there to get out ahead of the story, muddy the waters and soften the blow. 

Quote

Members of the Trump organization were running the business, not Trump himself. 

And Rudy just basically admitted that he was discussing the Trump Tower deal all the way up through the election. Cohen lied about that under oath. Trump would have been aware of this. 

You can't prove suborning perjury as the Buzzfeed article asserts without hard evidence of Trump telling Cohen to lie, but it's still not a good look. 

Quote

Did the president tell Cohen to lie? Rudy says 100% no. Just doesn't seem to be the there there as you guys seem to believe. 

Rudy says a lot things, many of which have turned out to be completely false.

I think the "so what?" with regard to talking to potential witnesses may be in preparation for something. 

[homersapien 11,381]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

So the significance is what? Rudy stated the president doesn't precisely know when they last spoke on the matter and that he was concentrating on the presidency. Members of the Trump organization were running the business, not Trump himself. 

 

You can bet your ass that Putin knows exactly what was discussed and when.  Probably has it on tape.

You cannot be this gullible.   Can you?

 

[homersapien 11,381]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Did the president tell Cohen to lie? Rudy says 100% no. Just doesn't seem to be the there there as you guys seem to believe. 

Seriously? 

You think Rudy's statements put Trump in the clear?? 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

This dude sounds nuts. Making a lot of arguments by assertion here.

Checked his work and it pretty much amounts to one long anti-democrat screed. 

Whatever. The guy nailed the parrots and their puppets. Thank you Ben.

Everyone you post has anti-republican screed. Why? Well.....LOL.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

That he may have been speaking to Cohen way later than we thought wrt the Trump Tower deal. Both Cohen and Trump have lied about this. Cohen's **** up was doing it under oath.

Didn't name an exact date, but he threw those months out there for a reason. 

And if the write-up I posted before from Joyce Vance and Mimi Rocah is correct, there's a method to this madness. They're saying he's not acting as a lawyer in the traditional sense. He's basically a spox/spin doctor. He's there to get out ahead of the story, muddy the waters and soften the blow. 

And Rudy just basically admitted that he was discussing the Trump Tower deal all the way up through the election. Cohen lied about that under oath. Trump would have been aware of this. 

You can't prove suborning perjury as the Buzzfeed article asserts without hard evidence of Trump telling Cohen to lie, but it's still not a good look. 

Rudy says a lot things, many of which have turned out to be completely false.

I think the "so what?" with regard to talking to potential witnesses may be in preparation for something. 

Lot's and I mean lot's of speculation in your commentary. So we do not agree. IIWII

I prefer facts over fiction. Perhaps Mueller will provide the facts you can't. We'll see.

One other point, the so called experts you regularly quote from Twitter have been wrong well over 100 times in two years. Telling.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You can bet your ass that Putin knows exactly what was discussed and when.  Probably has it on tape.

You cannot be this gullible.   Can you?

 

You quote that sh!t and call me gullible? Dude, stop drinking.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Seriously? 

You think Rudy's statements put Trump in the clear?? 

You made that statement not me. I don't allow puppets to put words in my mouth. Know that homes.

[AUDub 11,151]

12 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Whatever. The guy nailed the parrots and their puppets. Thank you Ben.

This is an argument by assertion. 

12 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Everyone you post has anti-republican screed. Why? Well.....LOL.

And I ask you to prove this statement. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

10 minutes ago, AUDub said:

This is an argument by assertion. 

And I ask you to prove this statement. 

It is a presentation of facts. There is a difference, but I understand your confusion. Let me help:

fact

/fakt/

noun

plural noun: facts

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.

   "he ignores some historical and economic facts"

   synonyms:

   reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude;

[AUFAN78 3,910]

13 minutes ago, AUDub said:

And I ask you to prove this statement. 

If you only knew the time involved in debunking your theorist you wouldn't ask. But whatever.

[AUDub 11,151]

16 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Lot's and I mean lot's of speculation in your commentary. So we do not agree. IIWII

Yes I put some commentary in there, however, you’re assuming a lot yourself. 

When Giuliani said “thoughout 2016,” do you take that to not mean Trump was not in communication with Cohen throughout the campaign?

That both Trump and Cohen have lied about this communication is documented fact.

Quote

I prefer facts over fiction.

And your arguments are rarely reliant upon fact. Take your article above. Lot of baseless assertion in there 

Quote

Perhaps Mueller will provide the facts you can't. We'll see.

I look forward to it. We’re all kind of fishing here. 

Quote

One other point, the so called experts you regularly quote from Twitter have been wrong well over 100 times in two years. Telling.

I wouldn’t dare deny that. I’ve been wrong too, many many times. 

[AUDub 11,151]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

It is a presentation of facts. There is a difference, but I understand your confusion. Let me help:

fact

/fakt/

noun

plural noun: facts

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.

   "he ignores some historical and economic facts"

   synonyms:

   reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude;

No, it’s a tabloid screed you’re trying to pass off as legit documentary evidence here. That doesn’t fly in the serious forum. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I wouldn’t dare deny that. I’ve been wrong too, many many times. 

Let's keep it there Ben. I'm good.

[AUDub 11,151]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

If you only knew the time involved in debunking your theorist you wouldn't ask. But whatever.

It’s must not be hard or you wouldn’t unequivocally state it as fact. Either retract the statement, or support it.